Things, people, and the animality of human

Usually in sociology, and this is true for other social sciences and to the humanities, what is more usual is to think of human beings as des-biologizados: the fact that they are beings cultural makes that there is no such thing as biological determinism or anything like that. I have criticized this position on other occasions, and still not success to think about why the social sciences as a project would depend on it. That is not the purpose of this entry.

Rather it is to note another dimension of the discussion. Because it does be common that this call to separate what is human from what is natural were based, to some extent, in a search for and defense of the dignity of human beings. That naturalizarlos is to treat them as things, and treat them as things you lose the value of what is human.

And yet, looked at as animals, the human beings, they are much more impressive than if they are observed as the embodiment of reason (for saying something). Of an animal species, the result of a random biological history, no longer wonder that, for example, perform very naturally and permanent operation of represent what it is not: From telling fictions to build plans for the future (and sometimes very long term) it all depends on that ability unheard of to think of what is not and not only in that which is. Or think not only in allowing all his manual skill, the ability to take things and handle them with precision, or even throw things with accuracy -which transforms the human beings in one of the species most threatening potential. And so with many other things. None of them requires thinking about human beings as a separate species from the rest, as if his humanity to do less animal; in the same way that recognizing the visual acuity of an eagle or the use of electricity by other species does not.

Planned change as a reason that walk in the world, human beings are always in lack. It is a matter of observing as many studies and analysis of limited rationality -that show human beings with biases and faults, instead of being loved raciocinadores without macula. Thought of as a natural process, in change, the capabilities of human beings are striking.

You can retrucar that it is all very well, but it still has to recognize what is essential: That treaty as a thing in the world, for more interesting that he is that thing, does not allow to recognize the value of what is human. That the foundation of all morality, of all attitude acceptable in the world, is in the duty of recognizing the person as a person (treating them as ends and not as means to use other literature). And one would say yes that is fine, but why think that the thing may not be a person? To recognize something as moral worth is precisely our strengths, one that has foundations in our animality (in the fact that we are beings inherently social). And perhaps it is more appropriate to broaden the scope of what can not be treated as a thing. Perhaps, in the end, little is that it is merely a thing in that sense.

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel.

Back To Top